Communal disharmony or failed security policy?

By Neville Ladduwahetty-March 18, 2018, 9:44 pm 

Could the recent violence in Digana, Ampara and earlier in Gintota be described as systemic incidents of communal disharmony or a failure in security policy to prevent violence? Judging from some headlines such as - the nation is burning in the fires of communal hatred; the beast rides again; to the question that this is not who we are the response is this is exactly who we Sri Lankans are; saffron is the colour of evil - it is communal disharmony. On the other hand, these very comments are accompanied by references to the coming together of Sinhala, Tamils and Muslim communities depending on the character of the incident on all occasions whether it was 1983, the tsunami and recently in Kandy and Ampara to douse the flames and bring aid and assistance to those victimized. Therefore, is the violence due to racist attitude of whole communities as reflected by the comments cited above, or the deranged work of a bigoted microscopic few; a fringe that exists in every society without exception?

Those who condemn whole communities invariably point the figure at the Sinhala Buddhists because as a community they are the largest. One such described it as the entrenching of the Sinhala Buddhist majority mindset. They forget the thousands of this very same entrenched Sinhala Buddhists who went out of their way at great risk to their lives to protect minorities at every instance including 1983, and on every occasion since. To smear a whole group is to ignore these undeniable facts and become as bigoted as the few who are hell bent on giving vent to their misguided views.

Bigoted views are held by a few in every society without exception. Whether it is the KKK, the skinheads, the neo-Nazis and White supremists, or any others, there are those who wait for an incident to give vent to their pent up frustrations and misbegotten ideologies. To use one brush and smear an entire society is however peculiar to the case of Sri Lanka, but for an inexplicable reason does not happen regarding any other country. While this peculiar trait exists in regard to Sri Lanka it does not exist in the West despite the fact that racial violence occurs every now and then in those countries as well. However, when it occurs in Sri Lanka, the West in particular along with their poster boys and girls in Sri Lanka is quick to condemn the Sinhala Buddhists, but not the White majority in the West. The question is what explains this peculiar mindset against the Sinhala Buddhists?

This contrast in perspective is evident from the letters to the media from locals and foreigners about Sri Lanka historically being identified with tolerance. We must not forget that it was the Sinhala Buddhist society which accommodated the Muslims who were persecuted by the Portuguese. This was the culture that existed and it still exists except for those occasions when a very few of the saffron robed, together with their lay disciples are able to resort to violence due to the failure of security policy. Except for these fringe elements the vast majority of the saffron robed protected the Muslims whenever such incidents occurred, with some reportedly staying guard in Mosques and others who were strident in their appeals for communal harmony. Under these circumstances could anyone with all seriousness, balance and objectivity, describe the situation in Sri Lanka as a nation that is burning in fires of communal hatred?

In the current incident it was members of the Muslim community who helped the Police to identify two of the four drunken hotheads who attacked the driver. Having arrested them, it is reported that they have been released on bail. This should not have happened, because it allows them to roam around freely thus giving additional cause for the fringe elements to be incensed. If reconciliation was the reason for granting them bail, there is a need to examine the sanity of those who interfered in the miscarriage of the law.

The Prime Minister is reported to have stated that it was "Only a handful had been engaged in violence and the Sinhalese Buddhists have been blamed by the whole world for the recent violence just because of this small group". Continuing he also stated: "We accept that there was a delay in taking action to control the recent clashes in Kandy especially after the initial incident…" ". (Daily Mirror, March 13, 2018) .

Having got the first comment right the PM got the second comment dead wrong. What went wrong was not in the delay "to control the recent clashes", but the fact that no attempt was made to prevent the clashes. The policy should not be to control once clashes are well under way, but to prevent clashes from starting in the first place particularly incidents involving communities. This was the lesson of 1983. If Sri Lanka has learnt any lessons from 1983 it is that the policy should be to prevent clashes and not to control them after clashes erupt.

When the unfortunate Sinhala lorry driver was taken to hospital the Police knew that the incident was an inter-communal issue. This should have alerted the Police to make the full force of their presence felt in the area. And when the unfortunate driver succumbed to his injuries, the Police should have been present in full force at the funeral house as well as in areas with Muslim concentrations. Such measures should have been adopted not only to protect the affected Muslim community but also to prevent the lunatic fringe from resorting to violence either because of their own misbegotten prejudices, or by them being manipulated by local or foreign operatives behind the scene in the pursuit of politically motivated agendas to destabilize the country. It is only an overwhelming Police presence that would deter the "handful" from resorting to communal violence.

As a policy, the strategy should be to prevent violence instead of control and contain which incidentally has been the strategy thus far. If the Police gears itself to adopt such an approach not only would governments not have to face charges of breakdown of law and order, but also the Police would not been seen by society as being flat footed and inept in fulfilling its responsibilities as the protector that maintains order in the society. The problem of control and contain after violence erupts is that measures adopted could be critiqued as either insufficient or too excessive. This is the dilemma faced by the Police. Therefore, the overwhelming presence of the Police at potential flash points, without fire arms and water cannons but with non-lethal hardware would act to deter and discourage perpetrators of violence.

If all those involved in an incident as occurred in Kandy where several three-wheelers were trying to overtake a lorry had been within one community the assault would have been interpreted as ‘road rage’. Since the incident involved two communities the assault acquired a whole new dimension. This was further compounded when the driver of the lorry succumbed to his injuries and died. Therefore, there is a compelling reason for adopting policies that immediately implement strategies that focus on prevention rather than resorting to strategies of containment after inter-communal incidents occur. Whatever the case may be the urgent need is not so much to promote District based racial harmony as contemplated by the government, but rather to revisit current policies and adopt security measures geared towards prevention rather than on control..